Common HODLer Thoughts about The Bitcoin Wars

The Bitcoin Wars have taken a form of hard-forking and politics that is making every hodler little nervous and a little tired...
I have been thinking about this for a long time now and these are some points that I would like to share with the community (if anybody cares :P) about The Bitcoin Wars:

1. The proposal for Bitcoin Cash is a short term solution, if 1 Mb blocks could manage 7 transactions per second... 8 Mb blocks will get to the 56 transaction per second quickly enough to understand scaling through block expansion does not make sense.

2. They have mention that Bitcoin Cash could also adopt Lightning solutions in the future, in that case, what was the point of the branch?

3. The percentage of people that is currently using Bitcoin to buy everyday stuff or live from it is not significant right now, it doesn't mean it will not be in the future, but right now price of Bitcoin is high because is currently being used as a reserve of value, not as payment method, that's why paying the transaction fees we currently pay is not stopping Bitcoin on maintaining its leading position (is not that I like to pay those fees, but I will explain further on next item)

4. People that is currently buying and hodling Bitcoin understands that we are currently in the first stages of this revolution, and sometimes you need to do one step back in order to think things through and give two steps to the front, this is a moment of Bitcoin in which developers are creating the protocol of something that will be clearly huge, while having to deal with the opinions of the whole world as stakeholders (if you managed a project in the past you know how that feels). IMHO the Segwit and Lightning Network solutions are the ones that are going to make Bitcoin really scale, the last changes to the protocol will be done in the next couple of years and then no more discussions or risks of branching will be threatening Bitcoin value. We need to learn to wait until the Lightning Network enables the solution we are expecting, meanwhile Bitcoin continues to grow in market cap

5. The promoters of SegWit2x have been clearly late to the party, if they don't like the size of the blocks they already have a hardfork where they can go to... if they like the SegWit solution they have another one, so for me is really clear that they are doing this to gain control of Bitcoin name, not having a replay protection makes all of this even clearer

6. Bitcoin Core indicates that they want 1 Mb blocks in order to keep the network decentralize, but the second Merkle tree increases not the blocksize but the communication for synchronization between full nodes, so in fact more bandwidth is needed anyway. I understand that this is the preferred approach because it doesn't involve a hardfork and is the more secure way to maintain backwards compatibility, so I think it make sense (lot better than having a hardfork just to duplicate the blocksize)

7. The solution of SegWit2x makes even less sense, because of item 6, since is even shorter term than Bitcoin Cash, in 1 year we will need a second hardfork for 4x, then a new one in 2 for 8x? In some years you would have multiple Bitcoins, for me that solution doesn't make any sense.

So after a lot of thought about this proposals I got to the conclusion that all solutions have their issues but the one that makes more sense overall is Bitcoin Core for me just because is the only one that ensures one Bitcoin and is thinking long term, so I'm sticking to my common sense, that may be not so common or even wrong but makes sense to me at least.

I'm just exposing some thoughts I had after listening to multiple people talking about it.
Hope you can have your own conclusions and make the decisions for yourself because there are a loooot of opinions on the matter...

May the HODL be with you...

Image source: